Until recently I exclusively played 1.d5 against 1.e4, always content to go into my comfortable world of the Scandinavian. Depending on my mood I would play either 3…Qa5 main line, or the modern variation 2…Nf6, going into the Portuguese or Icelandic Gambit. I had experimented with 3...Qd6 (or the Bronstein variation) and just didn't feel comfortable with the positions that arose.
The problem with Scandinavian 3..Qa5 was the positions were easy for white to play, and very drawish. I would still be happy to play this variation against stronger opposition, but against weaker players I needed a reply to 1.e4 that would be more testing for my opponents. The problem with 2…Nf6 was white could reply with Nf3, which eliminates all gambit tries, and is simply very strong for white.
So I went searching for the optimum opening, and still am, although the current opening I’m looking at is impressing me, and may eventually be the one I stick with. I’m an aggressive player, and prefer to play with an initiative. Given my style, the French, the Pirc and the Caro Kann were instantly ruled out. Other relatively passive openings such as the Owen and the Hippopotamus were also ruled out. I was really left with 2 choices , the Sicilian or 1…e5.
5 comments:
Hello Gambitz, I recommend 1...e5. It's been my choice for some time now. But even if you chose it, it's impossible not to have some form of the Sicilian in your opening repertoire, there's just no better defense, when you have to "win to order" (as my friend Robert Pearson puts it--see his blog NewVictorian) and 1...e5 throws the guess work out the window, since you have to be prepared against any White Opening. I like Bobby Fischer and Henrique Mecking's approach, let the opponent worry about his choices, both offensive and defensive. Eric
Cool new blog! I look forward to seeing what opening you settle on.
whoa - that was quick. Already 2 replies after my first post yesterday - I hope to keep this new blog updated on a regular basis, and primarily use it to share/post some rated games to see what I feedback I get. I mostly prefer commenting on other blogs.
eric - I've experimented with 1..e5 - who hasn't? I just feel it's too easy for white to get into a comfortable position unless I play something objectively risky; also the biggest drawback is that my opponents are going to be more comfortable with 1..e5 than 1..c5. I'm not a high rated chess player.
Thanks Blue devil Knight. From what I saw, both of you have excellent blogs, so I will try to visit them whenever i'm on blogger.
hello. I took up the scandi after reading Andrew Martin's brief little book on it. My chess coach convinced me to play the french instead and I am glad I listened. I get more counter-attacking chances with the French. When I get stronger with the french, I will mix and match - some sicilians, the scandi and the french. The scandi is solid, your pieces find good squares. Have you played the french at all?
Hello gambitz!
Loved the part where you beat Fritz! I'm still trying to beat Fritz 2....someday....
It seems to me that you picked a great strategy to use against Fritz in the shape of the double fianchetto (Bishops on B2 and G2). Kasparov used it to beat Deeper Blue in 1997, Lobron beat Deep Thought in 1991 and David N Levy beat a computer in the 1970s. It seems a great strategy to use when the game is long (not a rapid play or blitz game when the Stone Wall Attack with white seems to do well). Maybe this is the way to beat computers?
Hopefully gambitz you can beat Fritz a bit more and we'll see more of your games posted up on your blog.
All the best!
Post a Comment